The Student Room Group

Are Set 6 students likely to pass Maths?

Scroll to see replies

My maths teacher at school taught us (fasttrack) and one the of the lowest sets so the teaching standard would have been the same yet I doubt they were getting A* because the students just don't want to learn which is their parents fault. It's no coincidence that most of the lower sets come from council estates, their parents don't encourage them; they have seen their own parents 'get by' with no qualifications and getting all this free money so think they can do the same. Where most parents were teaching their kids to read and taking an interest, theirs were down the pub. I know this because I don't exactly come from an advantaged background and if it weren't for my dad reading to me and encouraging me I probably would have been in the same position.

I know this isn't always the case, some just can't grasp maths but it is 9 times out of 10. So no they probably aren't that likely to pass maths because you need to want to learn maths to pass it.
It depends on the standard of the school/sets. At my school I was in set 5 out of 6, but nobody got anything less than a B and most of us got As.
I was put in set 3 out of 4 sets (with set 5 being special needs I believe) in my high school for maths and I had an amazing teacher who really believed in me. I did my exam in November and got a C, so I was moved up to set 2 and re-sat to get a B. I was so so happy and even now, nearly a year after my results I still can't believe it.
Maths was my 2nd weakest subject (I got a D in German) and A's in everything else, and an A* in English Language.
When I was in set 3, about 3/4 of the students didn't want to work and were disruptive. I don't know if being put in a lower set demotivated them, or if they just genuinely didn't care.
You can blame it on the teacher, that they don't make sure the child understands the work and therefore if they did understand it, they would work - but if the pupil doesn't want to understand it then there isn't much you can do.
Being in lower sets may have made them think that they can't achieve, but if some didn't have such a negative attitude to work then they might actually do well.
That's just my opinion... I don't think it's necessarily the fact that lower sets are given the terrible teachers or the fact that students in lower sets think they won't/can't do well, but the fact that people in lower sets have a negative attitude to work (but then again that might be because they think they can't do well.) I guess there has to be a reason behind why some don't want to work.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
It sounds like your teacher could be getting causation and correlation mixed up
My school was odd compared to what most people seem to be saying. Basically our year was split into 'S' and 'C' so we had S1, S2 and S3 then C1, C2 and C3. Your number could change for each subject but never the letter.

S1 and C1 had the same maths teacher but at different times. In year 10 and 11 the top performing students in set 1 were taken out of one lesson a week for extra tutoring as we were the only ones to be taught two topic areas so we could get an A/A*. There were 5 from S1 and 5 from C1 so no one other than us 10 were taught surds for example.

The rest of the set 1 classes were taught normally, same with the set 2 classes.

Set 3 were taken out of core PE for extra tutoring to ensure they get a C.

So really the ones with an advantage were C/D borderline and A/A* borderline kids. Anyone else was forgotten about
Original post by Kwaku_96
My Sociology revision class were talking about setting and streaming and my teacher said that those in lower sets for Maths would most likely fail the subject. Do you think being in a bottom set puts student at a disadvantage? When students are placed in bottom sets, do you think teachers give up on them? I'd really like to know what everyone's opinions are.


I honestly think it depends. In Year 7 I was in one class above bottom set, but we had a really good teacher, so she made sure everyone was working at all times. There seems be an assumption that in top sets people are "more behaved"... This isn't the case at all. This definitely is a wrong assumption in my case. By Year 8 I was in top set... In Year 10 the people in my class weren't behaved at all, I think it was more, "I'm going to the grade so I don't care". Now one year on, all them people haven't done Maths for one year because they got A*/A/B at the end of Year 10. Yet I am here, resitting.

I think it also depends on the school's system. The teacher I had in Year 10 was rubbish, hands down. He's a nice guy don't get me wrong, but cannot teach what so ever. Therefore I learnt next to nothing in Year 10, which really did have a massive affect on me. Somehow he became head of Maths and is now considered "a good teacher".

I think there is a minority and a majority. In some schools people in bottom sets may have better teachers and vice versa in other schools. I'm in a position where no one cares about me/the very few people in my class, we simply have been pushed to the side. It honestly does depend on the school.

I think teachers will organise revision sessions for you, and enter you for exams... But the actual teaching... That is a different matter altogether.

I do think it's a shame. I see a lot of people who can do so much better, but because of poor teachers they can't. Even if they try, it's very hard to self teach yourself a lot of the work.

Not to say my school is rubbish, it has it's good side and bad side just like everything. All in all I think my school give lots of opportunities and comes across as we get all the help we need. However, when you're in the classroom it honestly is a different story altogether.

So there is a lot of things to take into consideration. It's not a simple yes or no question I don't think anyway. It honestly does depend on the school.
Reply 26
the thing is the bottom set get teachers that don't even teach maths or get the worst maths teachers
Original post by MissLightyear
My school was odd compared to what most people seem to be saying. Basically our year was split into 'S' and 'C' so we had S1, S2 and S3 then C1, C2 and C3. Your number could change for each subject but never the letter.

S1 and C1 had the same maths teacher but at different times. In year 10 and 11 the top performing students in set 1 were taken out of one lesson a week for extra tutoring as we were the only ones to be taught two topic areas so we could get an A/A*. There were 5 from S1 and 5 from C1 so no one other than us 10 were taught surds for example.

The rest of the set 1 classes were taught normally, same with the set 2 classes.

Set 3 were taken out of core PE for extra tutoring to ensure they get a C.

So really the ones with an advantage were C/D borderline and A/A* borderline kids. Anyone else was forgotten about


I really can relate to this. It's very similar in my school... It's a shame, but I was always working on a B...
streaming is a great idea they did it at both my last 2ndary schools, i never actually realised that wasn't the norm/everywhere until i watched waterloo road!

i really don't see why you would put low ability with high ability. if you put kids in sets the high ability quick learners can be in one group, the high ability slower learners can go in another, the low ability slow learners can go in another... etc. etc. i think it works out best for everyone, they can learn at their own pace and lessons can be adjusted to suit who is being taught rather than fast, high ability learners getting pulled back and not reaching their potential and low ability/those who need a bit more help getting lost and left behind.
also the people in the lower sets are more likely to be disruptive because they don't understand and this is amplified if they are in a class with people of a higher ability/faster learners.... because they feel they don't get it so don't bother and just start messing around instead.

the only thing i think could be improved is the fact they are called "top" set and "bottom" set or the "top" set is usually set "1". just number them randomly because it can upset/demoralise people and i know people who were pressured by pushy parents to the extent they were made very upset because they weren't in "top" set. you feel stupid if you are in the "bottom" set, "bottom" of the pile.
on the other hand i guess it could motivate people to work harder to move up a set, though i think the lower down the sets you go the less likely it is.
(edited 11 years ago)
Probably not, but it depends on how good your school is. Sets are usually determined by year 9 tests of some kind (SATs in my casse). But you were only entered for higher tier papers if you were in the top set, and I think a couple of people in set 2 who were capable of Bs.

For my school, the good/bad teachers were evenly spread out.

I was in top set, but ended up with 12 teachers for the two years! One of them could barely say/spell the words he needed to use as english was his third language. Our set did well, but considerably less well than the other set 1 who had the head of maths for the entire two years! :angry:

Another teacher came form a posh school and told us that in his previous school, students would ask for extra homework and nobody in his classes had gotten less than an A overall. Although I don't believe it when he said he had a mix of sets and still got this. I think he was telling us that in the two set 1 classes, people did the full gcse in year 10 and perhaps stats or AS maths in year 11. Set 2 people were capable of A/A* over the two years and set 3 people Were just on for As with extra help, over the two years. BS IMO.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 30
Original post by theking1
What grade did you end up getting?


an A :mad: was really praying for an A*
At my school, teachers that teach the lower set have said it's really frustrating teaching the kids simply because it's harder or takes longer for them to grasp mathematical concepts. Because of that, they may not put as much effort into teaching them properly as they would a top set class. Add to that, the most effective teachers are more often than not given to the top set. Sure, occassionally the top set will have an inadequate (I did when I was back in year 9), but almost all the time the best are given to the best.
Reply 32
I've just currently finished year 11 & when I was in year 7 I got moved down to the 2nd lowest set due to poor attendance after a during term holiday. I've never been moved back up for some reason but that hasn't stopped me from getting grades similar to those in the top sets.

In maths I got a 3a in sats & was predicted around an E at GCSE; Yet I got a B overall in my first go at linear & dropped maths last November. It's more about the student themselves and their willingness to get to that extra grade but those in lower sets are looked down on by teachers who would rather concentrate on the top sets.
Reply 33
I was in set 5 my teacher was really good she always kept our class motivated but I did get C in the end which im happy with it got me into sixth form and uni :biggrin:
Original post by EatRainbows
My maths teacher at school taught us (fasttrack) and one the of the lowest sets so the teaching standard would have been the same yet I doubt they were getting A* because the students just don't want to learn which is their parents fault. It's no coincidence that most of the lower sets come from council estates, their parents don't encourage them; they have seen their own parents 'get by' with no qualifications and getting all this free money so think they can do the same. Where most parents were teaching their kids to read and taking an interest, theirs were down the pub. I know this because I don't exactly come from an advantaged background and if it weren't for my dad reading to me and encouraging me I probably would have been in the same position.

I know this isn't always the case, some just can't grasp maths but it is 9 times out of 10. So no they probably aren't that likely to pass maths because you need to want to learn maths to pass it.

How ignorant. Most people 'from council estates' who have parents who don't have the time to teach them it is not because they are down the pub it's because they're working!

My parents tried their best at teaching me from a young age but unfortunately found it very difficult because they had to drop out of school at 15 to help their parents with younger siblings then had to work unsociable hours when I started school! Maybe if schools put a little effort into helping children from disadvantaged backgrounds instead of leaving them to their own devices to focus on the precious A* students who may be lucky enough to have well educated parents and someone who can stay at home to help anyway.

Yes there are reasons as to why those from 'council estates' (btw TSR not all of them are cesspits like you imagine there are terrible ones and quite nice ones) don't do as well but don't be so quick to judge peoples home life when you obviously know nothing about it.
Goes to show it's often the school that counts.:smile: My school tried implementing something like this by making us take extra maths lessons in place of a GCSE. Unfortunately the teacher who was supposed to do the extra lessons obviously couldn't be bothered and gave up half way through. So we ended up having nothing to do for 2 lessons a week and a GCSE down.:angry:
Original post by Beebumble
How ignorant. Most people 'from council estates' who have parents who don't have the time to teach them it is not because they are down the pub it's because they're working!

My parents tried their best at teaching me from a young age but unfortunately found it very difficult because they had to drop out of school at 15 to help their parents with younger siblings then had to work unsociable hours when I started school! Maybe if schools put a little effort into helping children from disadvantaged backgrounds instead of leaving them to their own devices to focus on the precious A* students who may be lucky enough to have well educated parents and someone who can stay at home to help anyway.

Yes there are reasons as to why those from 'council estates' (btw TSR not all of them are cesspits like you imagine there are terrible ones and quite nice ones) don't do as well but don't be so quick to judge peoples home life when you obviously know nothing about it.


I was speaking from experience and making a point. My dad works from 5 in the morning and doesn't get home until 7/8 doing hard work yet still made time to read to me. My homelife has been very stressful and am no way ignorant. I understand this isn't everyone's situation. Parent's don't even have to actively help their children, just encourage them to try at school and be told that higher education is an option for them. My dad was never encouraged and didn't even see university as an option so didn't do very well at school but is a very smart man. Many parents mainly in council estates encourage their children to leave school as early as possible and get a 'proper job'. I have witnessed this first hand.
At my school the kids in the lower sets were given much more attention than the higher sets but they just didn't want to learn.
Depends on the school to be honest in year 10 my top set English we all got A*-C grade so the best English teacher was then give to set 3 and 4 (they were merged). Also they were puled out of other "not so important lessons" if they were C/D borderline to make sure they got that C in Maths and English.

The assumption at my school with our new Head Master (he didn't like Head Teacher title), was all students must get 5 A*-C grades including Maths and English (national requirement). So in year 11 top set left to their own given 3 extra subjects plus English and Maths retakes, mind you our school jumped from 48% - 68% of students leaving with 5 A*-C grades including Maths and English however Top set some at least I felt did well but slightly under achieved some Vs could have been As some As A*s but it a compromise rather excel the top or leave the bottom or vice versa. Only schools I know that manage both are Grammar schools as they push the ones struggling with extra support (to be there they most be academic in the first place so it is do able) and excel the top e.g. in my current Sixth Form some year 11 do Maths AS early along with GCSEs.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by EatRainbows
I was speaking from experience and making a point. My dad works from 5 in the morning and doesn't get home until 7/8 doing hard work yet still made time to read to me. My homelife has been very stressful and am no way ignorant. I understand this isn't everyone's situation. Parent's don't even have to actively help their children, just encourage them to try at school and be told that higher education is an option for them. My dad was never encouraged and didn't even see university as an option so didn't do very well at school but is a very smart man. Many parents mainly in council estates encourage their children to leave school as early as possible and get a 'proper job'. I have witnessed this first hand.
At my school the kids in the lower sets were given much more attention than the higher sets but they just didn't want to learn.


I agree that many working class kids are not made aware university was an option. My own family are acting like I've betrayed them by going to university (although this may be jealousy because their kids had no interest). My parents too taught me to read from a young age which was great for my English skills but obviously gave me no understanding of Maths! Maybe your school was like mine where they automatically put bad kids with 'slow' ones. I think that's one of the main problems with many schools those who do want to learn are put in a classroom with those who don't.

It's not all to do with the parents. Of course they have some input in their child's education but some cannot help if their child is underachieving and it's wrong to assume that if their child is not doing well it's because they're down the pub!
Original post by Beebumble
I agree that many working class kids are not made aware university was an option. My own family are acting like I've betrayed them by going to university (although this may be jealousy because their kids had no interest). My parents too taught me to read from a young age which was great for my English skills but obviously gave me no understanding of Maths! Maybe your school was like mine where they automatically put bad kids with 'slow' ones. I think that's one of the main problems with many schools those who do want to learn are put in a classroom with those who don't.

It's not all to do with the parents. Of course they have some input in their child's education but some cannot help if their child is underachieving and it's wrong to assume that if their child is not doing well it's because they're down the pub!


Obviously I don't believe all of their parents are down the pub, as I said before I was making a point. I understand that some children are just not academic but they are still being hindered by the children of the incompetent parents who should also be educated on how to bring up kids. Those kids are probably underachieving because so much lesson time is being devoted to the disruptive ones. Maths is essential and I'm sure everyone should at least be able to achieve a C (except if they have a learning disability of some kind)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending